A magistrate is not required to pass separate, bifurcated orders for a police negative report and a protest petition. A single, comprehensive, and reasoned judicial order after considering all available evidence is sufficient and constitutes the correct legal procedure for disposing of such matters.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (hereinafter referred to as ‘Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No.13/2024, by which the revision petition submitted by the complainant-respondent has been allowed and the order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in the proceedings arising out of FIR No.23/2021 and FR No.01/2023 registered with the Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to the learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders after hearing both the sides.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 has lodged FIR No.23/2021 with the Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 IPC with the allegations that the petitioner developed physical relationship with her on the pretext of false promise of marriage. Counsel submits that the victim is in habit of lodging similar kind of FIRs against different persons, across the country. He has given reference to as many as 16 such different instances by way of filing a detailed compilation. Counsel submits that in five cases, similar allegation of rape has been levelled by the prosecutrix against different accused persons, and it has been averred that on the pretext of false promise of marriage, all of the accused persons developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her. Counsel submits that in all the above mentioned instances, either the proceedings of the aforesaid cases were quashed or the matters resulted in acquittal of the concerned accused persons. Counsel submits that in one of the matters, proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated against the prosecutrix and she was found guilty of the same and ultimately punished with a fine of Rs.500/- along with simple imprisonment till rising of the Court by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide order dated 08.03.2022 in CIS No.49/2022.

3. Counsel further submits that the instant case is a glaring example of repetition of lodging of identical false cases by the respondent-prosecutrix. Counsel submits that taking the aforesaid aspect of the matter into consideration, the Police submitted Final Report (Negative) in favour of the petitioner, giving reference of all the above cases and finding no prima facie case against the petitioner for the allegations of committing alleged offences, as levelled by the prosecutrix. He submits that against the aforesaid Final Report, a protest petition was filed by the prosecutrix before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, wherein her statements along with other witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate vide order dated 08.01.2024, accepted the Final Report (Negative) and rejected the aforementioned protest petition submitted by the complainant-respondent. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was assailed by the complainant-respondent before the Revisional Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I and the same came to be allowed vide order impugned dated 09.12.2024 and the matter has been remitted to the l